I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; - but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

cman:Jesus christ, dude. There are hundreds of perfect examples that you could have used and you picked the one that is a stain upon our memory and hold it up as a positive event.

The structure of the Legislative itself is an excellent example. Proportional representation in the House (favored by the larger states) and set representation in the Senate (favored by the smaller states). It's in its historical reference -- "The Great Compromise."

In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

Its one of those really awful things. Clearly it was a victory for slave states. However, without it I doubt the Constitution would have been ratified at all. It built into the Constitutional framework tensions that would eventually explode into Civil War.

FTFA: By partially counting slaves for the allocation of representation, the South gained a huge bonus in the House of Representatives, even though these states considered their slaves to be property that, as such, had no political voice and no legal rights.

WTF Indeed:In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

But had the can not been kicked down the road, there would have been two countries, not one. There was no way the non-slave states could enforce their will on the slave states in 1780, as they did 80 years later. Morally horrible, but realistically, the best outcome. You would have had two countries expanding west, and slavery expanding across the continent. Maybe no Louisiana Purchase, most of the SW remains in Mexico, European powers exploiting the tensions between the northern and southern states for their own benefit.

CPT Ethanolic:You're aware that it was the slave states that wanted blacks counted as full people, right? Counting them as "less than 1" person was a northern/free state idea actually worked to help end slavery.

Well, you've certainly taken a stand against TFA, which argues exactly the opposite: " Southerners were able to block federal legislation hostile to slavery and get the House to pass numerous laws that protected slavery. The three-fifths clause provided the extra proslavery representatives in the House to secure the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (bringing Missouri in as a slave state); the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 (which opened the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain territories to slavery). None of these laws could have been passed without the representatives created by counting slaves under the three-fifths clause."

Somacandra:CPT Ethanolic: You're aware that it was the slave states that wanted blacks counted as full people, right? Counting them as "less than 1" person was a northern/free state idea actually worked to help end slavery.

Well, you've certainly taken a stand against TFA, which argues exactly the opposite: " Southerners were able to block federal legislation hostile to slavery and get the House to pass numerous laws that protected slavery. The three-fifths clause provided the extra proslavery representatives in the House to secure the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (bringing Missouri in as a slave state); the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 (which opened the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain territories to slavery). None of these laws could have been passed without the representatives created by counting slaves under the three-fifths clause."

And if they were counted as full people, the southern states would have had even more influence through additional reps.

There comes a time when political correctness goes too far, where it is a knee-jerk response, a zero-tolerance policy. The problem with that is you end up not THINKING. It was an instance of compromise that yes, helped enshrined slavery, however it allowed this nation to power forward. You have to look at history for what it is. What lens do you use to talk about it?

You have to be able to speak rationally about things in college. You are supposed to be taught to look at facts and discern their effect on history. Absolutely, slavery is offensive. But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen and we are STILL trying to climb out of that hole in this country. You talk about the 3/5 compromise as one of the forging moments of this country and foment discussion of why we are the way we are.

Fer cryin out loud, the man wasn't saying slavery was a good thing. What is wrong with people?

WTF Indeed:In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

Agree. Considering women had 0/5ths of a vote, I say it was a pretty damn good deal at the time.

Maybe this is the key to getting the Republicans to stop blocking everything - tell them that if they let some of Obama's legislation pass, minorities will once again be considered 3/5 of a person. Skaboom! No more Republican blockage.

CPT Ethanolic:cman: hundreds of perfect examples that you could have used and you picked the one that is a stain upon our memory and hold it up as a positive event.

You're aware that it was the slave states that wanted blacks counted as full people, right? Counting them as "less than 1" person was a northern/free state idea actually worked to help end slavery.

I see I'm not needed here.

It was about counting as a matter of determining districts and state votes, not as a matter of letting each slave vote, but have it be only worth 3/5ths of a white person's vote. Hell, black people voting wasn't even allowed until nearly century later.

Is it just me or have some people not read the article (It's Fark, stupid):

This was a provision that was not directly about race but about status and the allocation of political power. Free blacks were counted in exactly the same way as whites. The clause did not say that a slave was three-fifths of a person. The clause said nothing about free blacks, who were treated by the clause exactly as free whites were.Rather, the clause provided a mathematical formula that allowed for the allocation of representatives in Congress that factored in the slave population. No slaves could vote in the country (although free blacks could vote in a number of states), and the clause did not provide a voice for slaves. This was about the distribution of political power among the states.

mrshowrules:WTF Indeed: In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

Agree. Considering women had 0/5ths of a vote, I say it was a pretty damn good deal at the time.

Umm... slaves couldn't vote either, if that's what you're implying.

They were considered 3/5ths of a person for census purposes, meaning they gave greater weight to the votes of their owners.

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; - but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest - I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat a single inch - AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

Jackson Herring:Wendy's Chili: meaning they gave greater weight to the votes of their owners.

so what you are saying is that the slave states got 98% of what they wanted

what a compromise!

You're forgetting that a part of the new Constitution was the prescribed ban on international slave trading that was expressly permitted 20 years after the passage of the document. Wasn't that a win for the abolitionists??

That's what I took it to mean, not clicking the link but knowing The Root is a black commentary magazine (unless they're pilloring someone for using the example; as I said, DNRTFA.)

Compromise is the solution where nobody gets what they want; often times that is a good thing, but when you have one party taking a position that is off the deep end of what is considered reasonable to the other, any compromise is going to include stuff the other side would otherwise consider toxic.

This is the problem for Republicans: they've painted themselves into a corner that all public assistance programs (even those dating back to the New Deal) are now socialism of the highest order, and to compromise in any way that preserves them is a betrayal of conservative ideals/capitalism itself. Republicans can't compromise because they are so myopic that the federal government of every previous president going back to Hoover is tainted by liberalism that sets the status quo as unacceptable.

WTF Indeed:In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves). The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

mrshowrules:WTF Indeed: In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

Agree. Considering women had 0/5ths of a vote, I say it was a pretty damn good deal at the time.

You don't understand the 3/5 compromise I see.

The 3/5 compromise did not give slaves 3/5 of a vote. It counted them as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of apportioning congressional representation. Free women and children were counted as full people for that purpose, despite not being allowed to vote

Arkanaut:TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves). The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

The south wanted slaves to be counted as 1 and the north wanted the slaves to be counted as 0.... so the south got a .1 advantage on the compromise but were barred from importation... it really is a split.

That's actually a really naive view, it's one held up by a lot of the teaparty class of 2010 as their mantra as well. I wish I can remember his name, but a long time GOP representative basically laid it out with a football analogy that I thought was appropriate. It went something like this:

These guys have no concept of any other play than the hail mary. For them it's all or nothing. They don't understand how to make a first down.

I think that's appropriate. I also think what TFA is trying to say is that as abhorent as compromise is at the time, if the problem still persists, then it will get solved (eventually). Legislation is an iterative process - no one ever gets it right the first time and numerous factors can change that make something that even seems "right" at the time, very very very "wrong" down the track. Ideological absolutism doesn't really have a place in a democratic process because it's essentially ineffectual. We're seeing a lot of that right now with how the GOP seems to be losing almost every battle they fight against a President that should be entering into his "lame duck" years pretty soon.

Saiga410:Arkanaut: TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves). The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

The south wanted slaves to be counted as 1 and the north wanted the slaves to be counted as 0.... so the south got a .1 advantage on the compromise but were barred from importation... it really is a split.

Actually the importation ban was a benefit to slave owners. It made their slaves more valuable

Arkanaut:WTF Indeed: In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves). The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

And that wasn't something the North wanted? How much different would the House of Representatives have looked if the South had been able to count the millions of slaves towards their allotment of Representatives? Slavery was a moral stain on this nation, but the compromise maintained the nation for a critical 80 years. Most likely, the nation would have balkanized, and instead of one civil war, we would have had half a dozen.

Philip Francis Queeg:Saiga410: Arkanaut: TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves). The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

The south wanted slaves to be counted as 1 and the north wanted the slaves to be counted as 0.... so the south got a .1 advantage on the compromise but were barred from importation... it really is a split.

Actually the importation ban was a benefit to slave owners. It made their slaves more valuable

... maybe but I do not think it was thought of like that at the time. I thought the desire at that time was to keep labor cheap so the importation of new slaves was a want. It was only an unintended conseuence to this favored large slave holders.

devildog123:Arkanaut: WTF Indeed: In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves). The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

And that wasn't something the North wanted? How much different would the House of Representatives have looked if the South had been able to count the millions of slaves towards their allotment of Representatives? Slavery was a moral stain on this nation, but the compromise maintained the nation for a critical 80 years. Most likely, the nation would have balkanized, and instead of one civil war, we would have had half a dozen.

In hindsight though, the Civil War would have been very different if it had been fought with 1790's technology instead of repeating rifles, telegrams, soldiers being mobilized on steamships and trains -- could have been a lot less deadly. Although who knows who would have won in that scenario.

CPT Ethanolic:cman: hundreds of perfect examples that you could have used and you picked the one that is a stain upon our memory and hold it up as a positive event.

You're aware that it was the slave states that wanted blacks counted as full people, right? Counting them as "less than 1" person was a northern/free state idea actually worked to help end slavery.

You are aware that this had nothing to do with the slave states thinking of black people as people. Black people were property to them, and the slave states thought that owning people as property ought to give them more representation in congress. The non-slave states argued that this did not entitle slave owners to more representation (and therefore more political power). The compromise, to get the Constitution passed, was 3/5. Again, slave holders were not arguing that slaves were people who deserved representation. Quite the opposite. They were arguing that slaves represented dollars, and dollars should equal more political power than people without as many dollars. This is an argument that some still embrace.

Saiga410:Philip Francis Queeg: Saiga410: Arkanaut: TFA seems to think it's not much of a compromise at all -- the South got almost everything it wanted (greater political representation of its voting public) and the North got nothing it wanted (abolition or even legal standing for slaves). The only reason they agreed on it was to prevent the breakup of the country.

The south wanted slaves to be counted as 1 and the north wanted the slaves to be counted as 0.... so the south got a .1 advantage on the compromise but were barred from importation... it really is a split.

Actually the importation ban was a benefit to slave owners. It made their slaves more valuable

... maybe but I do not think it was thought of like that at the time. I thought the desire at that time was to keep labor cheap so the importation of new slaves was a want. It was only an unintended conseuence to this favored large slave holders.

A consequence that made it a relatively easy thing for the slaveholders to give as a "compromise". Don't forget those who attended the Constitutional Convention were largely from the upper classes an dwould have been amongst the larger slave holders.

The south only really came to regret the non importation clause later after the invention of the cotton gin remade the southern economy and the limits on the increase in slave labor somewhat constricted growth.

Philip Francis Queeg:mrshowrules: WTF Indeed: In historical terms, yes, it is a great example of political compromise. Just because morally it was a horrible decision does not mean that in the context of the times it wasn't a great example of compromise. Are there less contentious examples? Of course, but none encompass the scope of the 3/5ths compromise. It was also the trigger for further compromises over slavery which "kicked the can" for other generations to deal with. It's a great metaphor for the current Congress' unwillingness to deal with matters of a corrupt tax code, over-spending, crumbling infrastructure, and poor healthcare system.

Agree. Considering women had 0/5ths of a vote, I say it was a pretty damn good deal at the time.

You don't understand the 3/5 compromise I see.

The 3/5 compromise did not give slaves 3/5 of a vote. It counted them as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of apportioning congressional representation. Free women and children were counted as full people for that purpose, despite not being allowed to vote

I can see I missed that. Of course black people received the vote much later. In any case, the compromise seems horrible from today's perspective but in the context of the time, it might actually have been a good move in the right direction.

In college we had to hold our own constitutional convention for a history class. We were each assigned the characteristics of a state and told to come up with an acceptable government. It was fairly boring because most kids were there for the easy history credit, not a fondness for the subject. A friend and I constantly tried to get them to do weirder things, but the constitution we were voting on looked stupidly like ours. Then the question of counting slaves and apportionment came up. Playing on white, middle class guilt I told them we couldn't possibly count blacks as less than 1 person. We could however over represent whites by counting them five-thirds of a person. Problem solved. It's just about the only deviation we had besides a popular vote for the president. I was pushing for a proportional representation in a tricameral legislature, but no luck.